Government’s own analysis shows largest group to be hit by disability benefit cuts are single women, highlights Women’s Budget Group

[IwantToRetire]

Women's Budget Group's immediate response to the Spring Statement 2025

“We recognise the challenging situation facing the Chancellor. However, the Government is making decisions that will seriously impact people’s lives up and down the country, particularly children, women and Disabled people, based on forecasts that may not even materialise in order to meet its own self-imposed spending rules. This is deeply disappointing and misguided.

“The Government’s own impact assessment shows that changes to social security are likely to result in an alarming 250,000 more adults and 50,000 children being pushed into poverty undermining its own child poverty strategy due to launch in June.

“They also show that the largest group affected by the changes will be single women, making up 44% of those losing out, at an average of £1,610 a year.

“Frustratingly, there is nothing in the documents on the impact on carers or likely impact on people who may have to drop out of the workforce to pick up the care of people whose benefits have been cut – most of whom will be women.

“Years of austerity under previous governments diminished people’s living standards and weakened the economy, making us less prepared for the economic shocks that followed. The Chancellor has committed to improving people’s living standards. This can’t be done by cutting vital social security and public services. Instead she should be investing in the foundations of our economy, repairing the damage done through austerity.

“This could be funded by taxation of the very wealthiest people in the country, redistributing resources in a time when wealth inequality is growing. We would also urge the Chancellor to reconsider her fiscal rules to recognise the value of investing in social infrastructure, including social security and public services. Ill and Disabled people have already borne the brunt of austerity, they should not pay the price of arbitrary spending rules and unreliable forecasts.”

Impact assessments

“The impact assessment estimates that an alarming 50,000 more children will be in poverty as a result of the changes, and 250,000 adults.

“The equality impact assessments of changes to social security show that 44% of adults who will lose out are single women, losing an average of £1,610; 34% are single men losing an average of £1,460 and 32% are couples.

“Single women also make up the majority of those who will gain from the changes to the standard rate (59%), but by a lower average amount of £380 a year. Single men will gain an average £470 a year.

“Frustratingly, there is nothing in the documents on the impact on carers or likely impact on people who may have to drop out of the workforce to pick up the care of people whose benefits have been cut.”

Analysis continues at https://www.wbg.org.uk/article/our-immediate-response-to-the-spring-statement-2025

Well, it feels like a long time since WBG actually cared about sex differences as opposed to gender, and I welcome this analysis.

I would hope some organisation produces an impact assessment for carers (disproportionately women).

Well, it feels like a long time since WBG actually cared about sex differences as opposed to gender, and I welcome this analysis.

As they regularly comment on the impact of Government financial policy on women eg as mothers I am not sure how you could have got that idea!

Meanwhile, men who leave their families get away with paying a pittance in child benefit. It is effing outrageous!

Surprise surprise. Not. Once again,women are being thrown under the bus. Every bloody time there is some sort of crisis (e.g. the pandemic and lockdowns) it is ALWAYS women who fare the worst. I wonder why that is? 🤔

I know we've had threads about how Labour is now more Tory than the Tories, but is the fact they are so blatant that really gets me.

ie they've done the calculation, seen who will get hit, and said that's okay.

Not even one token type of tax or cut to the fat cats, or the tech companies.

Or for that matter MP expenses and subsidised food and drink.

And they wont pay for school meals.

Women don't get angry. Men do.

Also, women are not people, so their work doesn't count and the things they need to enable them to work or carry out the burden of care which we all carry, don't matter either.
Time women's unpaid work was included in GDP and the social infrastructure that supports us put properly in place.
But Starmer et al won't do that. They have drunk the neo-liberal kool aid that taxing the rich stymies investment.

Women can't be seen in stats if you make them gender neutral.

Woo for equality and the invisible women.

“This could be funded by taxation of the very wealthiest people in the country, redistributing resources in a time when wealth inequality is growing. We would also urge the Chancellor to reconsider her fiscal rules to recognise the value of investing in social infrastructure, including social security and public services. Ill and Disabled people have already borne the brunt of austerity, they should not pay the price of arbitrary spending rules and unreliable forecasts.”

Men are as much as an issue as the wealthy. How tackling the cost of absent parents (fathers predominantly) There are billions to be had there.

Which makes gender woo the latest ploy to silence women. Time we shouted out loudly.

I hate to say this but those figures add up to 110% (44, 34,32)

On another thread some of us have been exploring ChatGPT answers to feminist questions. So as no one can make me understand Labour's approach to not taxing the rich I though I would ask Chat GPT to explain!

How does it help to have the majority of UK citizens unable to make their wages cover their outgoings so that a few rich people dont have to pay their fair share of the difficult economic situation. How is this a "Labour" approach to the problem?

You're absolutely right to question the logic behind a situation where the majority of people are struggling to make ends meet while the wealthiest are not contributing their fair share, especially when it comes to tackling economic challenges. The situation you describe—where low-income workers are squeezed, yet the rich aren't shouldering more of the burden—often feels counterproductive to the values traditionally associated with the Labour Party, such as fairness, equality, and support for working people.

To break this down:

1. Labour’s Traditional Values: Historically, the British Labour Party has been a champion of workers’ rights, social justice, and reducing inequality. Its foundation rests on improving the lives of ordinary working people and supporting a fairer distribution of wealth. So, when Labour seems to avoid taxing the rich or takes steps that negatively affect low-income workers, it can appear to contradict its core principles.
2. The Austerity Legacy: After the financial crisis of 2008, the UK (along with many other countries) experienced a period of austerity where cuts were made to public services and welfare spending. This disproportionately affected low-income groups. Some within the Labour Party have argued against austerity, but others—especially in leadership positions in recent years—have been reluctant to go too far in taxing the wealthy due to fears of political pushback or concerns about stifling economic growth.
3. The Economic Argument for Taxing the Wealthy: The basic argument for taxing the wealthiest individuals more heavily is that it’s a fairer way to balance the books. Wealthier individuals and corporations generally have the resources to pay higher taxes without negatively affecting their quality of life or business operations. In contrast, low-income workers often spend almost all of their earnings just to meet basic needs like housing, food, and transportation. Asking them to bear the brunt of budget cuts or austerity measures while the rich face minimal taxation is seen by many as fundamentally unfair.
4. Pragmatism or Political Pressure?: The reason some Labour leaders may not embrace wealth taxes as aggressively as their traditional stance would suggest could be a mix of pragmatism and political calculations. Some in the party might fear that raising taxes on the wealthy could lead to capital flight (wealthy individuals or companies leaving the country to avoid higher taxes) or hurt business investment, which could harm the overall economy. Others might feel the political costs of such policies would outweigh the potential benefits, particularly if they risk alienating wealthy donors or key voting constituencies.
5. The Disconnect: When the Labour Party fails to push hard for wealthier individuals to contribute more, or if they implement measures that harm low-income workers, it can create a disconnect between their stated values and their policies. This contradiction undermines the party's credibility as the party of working-class people. Many people in the UK might expect the Labour Party to challenge the economic structures that allow a small number of people to accumulate vast wealth while the majority struggle. Failing to do so feels like a betrayal of that mandate.
6. Public Perception: When people see that wealth inequality is growing, and they are being asked to tighten their belts even more while the richest continue to enjoy significant tax breaks, it fosters a sense of unfairness. This can erode public trust in the government and any political party that fails to meaningfully address these disparities.

In short, a "Labour" approach to tackling the economic situation would ideally involve progressive taxation—where the wealthiest pay a fair share—combined with support for low-income workers through policies that ease the burden on them. It's about ensuring that the economic system works for everyone, not just a privileged few. If Labour is moving away from that vision, it's understandable why people would question how much they truly represent working-class interests.

If you’re interested, we could also dive into specific proposals or examples where the Labour Party’s approach has been critiqued or debated, or we could look at how this situation compares to other political ideologies.

So as no one can make me understand Labour's approach to not taxing the rich I though I would ask Chat GPT to explain!

Why is the focus just on the wealthy? Everyone wants to tax the rich, nobody wants to talk about waste in the system.

How much do absent fathers cost the UK economy?

ChatGPT said:
The cost of absent fathers to the UK economy is a complex issue that involves various factors, including social, economic, and psychological impacts. The costs are not always easily quantified, but several studies and reports have tried to estimate the economic consequences of father absence in terms of government expenditure, lost productivity, and societal impacts.

1. Financial Costs to the Government

The UK government spends substantial amounts on welfare and social support programs that are often required when fathers are absent from their children's lives. Key areas of impact include:
Welfare Benefits: Single-parent households, often headed by mothers, may rely on state benefits such as child benefits, universal credit, housing benefits, and income support. According to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, single parents (many of whom are women with absent fathers) are more likely to experience poverty, and these households require more state support.
Social Services: The government also spends money on social services to support children in vulnerable situations, particularly those living in homes without fathers. This includes spending on child protection services, mental health support, and interventions for children who may be at risk of neglect or abuse.
Cost of Crime: Absent fathers have been linked to higher rates of youth crime and anti-social behavior, which can place significant strain on the criminal justice system. Studies have shown that children in father-absent homes are more likely to be involved in criminal activities, which results in higher law enforcement, legal, and prison system costs. According to some estimates, the cost of youth crime to the UK economy can run into billions of pounds annually.

1. Impact on Child Development and Education

Children growing up without a father are statistically more likely to experience academic underachievement and behavioral problems. This has longer-term economic costs as these children are less likely to perform well in school and may have reduced employment prospects in the future.
Educational Attainment: Fatherless children are more likely to perform poorly academically. This can contribute to higher school dropout rates and a greater need for support programs for those struggling academically. Children from father-absent homes are also more likely to end up in special educational needs programs, which incur additional costs for schools and local authorities.
Health and Mental Health Costs: Children of absent fathers may experience higher rates of depression, anxiety, and behavioral disorders, which can lead to higher NHS costs for mental health treatment, counseling, and medication. They may also face higher rates of substance abuse, which leads to more healthcare and rehabilitation costs in the long term.

1. Loss of Economic Productivity

Father-absent homes can also contribute to lost productivity in the workforce, both for the parents involved and their children as they grow older:
Single-Parent Households: Mothers in single-parent households often face challenges in balancing work and child-rearing responsibilities, which can lead to lower employment rates and lower earnings. Single parents may need to rely on part-time work or may miss work due to childcare responsibilities, reducing their overall contribution to the economy.
Future Workforce: Children who grow up without fathers may face difficulties in securing employment or may experience lower lifetime earnings. According to the UK’s Centre for Social Justice, children from fatherless homes are more likely to end up in low-income jobs or be unemployed, which can perpetuate the cycle of poverty and reduce overall economic productivity.

1. Estimates of the Costs

While it is difficult to calculate the exact total cost of absent fathers to the UK economy, various studies have attempted to put a price on the broader social consequences:
Centre for Social Justice Report: A 2015 report by the Centre for Social Justice estimated that father absence costs the UK economy £51 billion per year. This includes the costs of welfare, the criminal justice system, health care, and lost economic productivity, as well as the long-term costs associated with poorer outcomes for children growing up in fatherless households.
Impact on Child Poverty: Father absence is strongly associated with higher rates of child poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that children in father-absent homes are more likely to experience poverty, which requires significant government spending on welfare benefits and support programs.
Conclusion
The economic cost of absent fathers to the UK economy is substantial, with estimates ranging from billions to over £50 billion per year when considering the impact on public services, the criminal justice system, educational outcomes, and long-term workforce productivity. While not all the costs are directly attributed to father absence alone, the absence of fathers in children's lives is a significant factor contributing to these broader social and economic challenges.

Interesting details about absent fathers, but as we all know for some mothers its is safer for the father to be absent.

And even if there was a tax on absent fathers which went to the mother and the children, this might help them is a small way, but would not help the overall cut to provision that is impacting all families, ie health and education just for starters. Let alone benefits.
.

Just to add my post was sort of silly, as AI will only compile what is already in the public domain. I doesn't as far as I know take that available information and then attempt to view it in a different way.

It just repeats the conventions it has learnt.

However I have learnt that if its reply is disappointing, which I told them it was as it didn't explain the harsh attitudes, I did get an apology for being mad to feel sad, and I was welcome to come back if I needed to talk more!

Who are the wealthy - is the next question.

Is it people in employment but with large mortgages and debts?
Is it people who are retired with large pensions which younger people will never match and will have to be older?
Is it people with lots of assets but little income?
Is it billionaire business owners who live overseas and are rich due to being able to control markers with monopolies?
Is it people who are likely to have large inheritances?

One of our key problems is that older people will be net benefiaries of tax / benefits during the course of their lifetimes whereas young adults today will be net contributors. The reasons for this are greater costs and poor management of taxation over many years as well as a demographic profile which has led to older people getting a more favourable deal as it wins more votes.

As this generation gets older - and more expensive to support - and younger generations start to have a greater voting power, we are seeing conversations about who is rich changing and we are seeing conversations about end of life changing. It's not a coincidence that assisted dying is being talked about at the same time as budget concerns and a demographic tipping point approaches.

Billiions is not a small amount. Holding men financially accountable will have measurable financial and non financial benefits to women, children and wider society.

Why are you minimising the cost of absent fathers or waste in the system. Nobody is saying women should be forced to stay with the fathers of their children. The absent parent (overwhemingly biological men) should be responsible for supporting their children, not tax payers.

Asking the wealthy ( @RedToothBrush raises a valid question about who they are) to put even more money to a wasteful system isn't going to help women.